WATERSIDE WORKERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 72, Issue 235, 3 October 1929, Page 8

WATERSIDE WORKERS

NO INCREASE IN WAGES ADVOCATE’S STATEMENT [ Per Press Association ] WELLINGTON, Oct. 2. No alteration has been made in the rate of wages in the New Zealand waterside workers’ award filed in the Court of,Arbitration to-day. The main dispute with which the Court was concerned was the general cargo Tate, which is the basic rate for the industry. The majority of the Court—Mr Justice Blair and Mr Schmitt (employers’ representative)—found that there had been no change in tho conditions warranting any increase in the new award. The previous rate had been adopted, but some minor adjustments had been made in the nature of increases to correct some inconsistencies in the old award. The union claimed that the general cargo rate should be increased 2d an hour, the basis of the claim being the casualness of employment in the industry was greater than was assumed* to be the case when tho Court found that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that any increase" in the basic rate was justified on the ground of increased casualness There was a marked divergence in the views of the members of the Court upon the question of what was called the “basic wage.” The advocate for the union contended that the “man, his wife,, and two children” basis was positively fixed as the basis upon which the Court calculated the basic wage of an adult worker. That view was upheld by Mr Monteith (workers’ representative on the Court). The majority of the Court held that the view was not a proper basis and was, moreover, an unsound basis. Mr Monteith, after the discussion upon the question of wages, dissociated himself from participation in the settlement of the remaining questions left for discussion. He wrote a dissenting opinion in which he made it clear that he refrained from taking any part in the framing of the award. Mr Monteith, in his dissenting memorandum, concluded: “As the increase they are entitled to has been refused, I will not accept ahy responsibility for any untoward happening in this industry as the result of, in my opinion, the inadequate wage allowed.”